[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 110 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Page H3085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE NEED FOR 2002 AUMF REPEAL AND THE PEACE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cloud) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLOUD. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for Congress to reassert its 
role in the war powers discussion.
  I proudly joined many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
last week in voting to repeal the 2002 AUMF. This AUMF provided for 
military operations in Iraq, an Iraq that is far different from the one 
we know today.
  The goal was to defend the United States against the threat posed by 
an Iraq of 20 years ago, specifically, that of Saddam Hussein. Saddam 
Hussein was captured in December of 2003 and executed 3 years later.
  Despite ousting Saddam Hussein, the 2002 AUMF has remained on the 
books. Less than one-fifth of the current Members of the House of 
Representatives were present on that original AUMF vote. As you can 
imagine, many Members have entered Congress and left the Halls of 
Congress without ever taking a vote on the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs.
  Repealing the existing AUMFs, like the one from 2002, can be a step 
in the right direction in Congress reasserting its Article I powers, 
but we should not stop there. We need to rethink how we approach 
military authorizations.
  A few weeks ago, I introduced the Preventing Endless Armed Conflict 
and Engagement Act, or the PEACE Act for short. The goal of this bill 
is to ensure regular oversight is being conducted on future military 
authorizations.
  First, this bill would require each military authorization, or AUMF, 
to terminate after 2 years. This is because the Constitution stipulates 
that military funding should not extend past 2 years. This would also 
ensure that every Member of Congress has the opportunity to weigh in on 
current military operations.
  The PEACE Act would also set standards for drafting military 
authorizations. For instance, each authorization would need to set a 
geographic scope on where the military force can be used. A clear 
objective would need to be established for each authorization, and the 
countries and groups that the U.S. troops are authorized to fight must 
be listed.
  Additionally, the Department of Defense and the State Department 
would be charged with publishing an annual, unclassified report on 
existing military operations. This report will include information such 
as whether the military is meeting their objective, the number of 
casualties, and total cost. This will assist Congress in making the 
needed decisions that we have to make regarding AUMF reauthorizations. 
Finally, the DOD and State Department will be required to brief Members 
of Congress on the contents of this report once every 6 months.
  It is critical that new Members of Congress, with new constituencies, 
have their chance at providing input into military operations. Many 
Members came to the floor last week to reiterate the importance of 
updating these existing AUMFs instead of repealing them. While I 
supported the repeal, I do hope that any updated or future AUMF 
incorporates elements from the PEACE Act.
  Future AUMFs should be more concise and relied on for only a few 
years, not for a couple decades.
  I look forward to working with Members from both sides of the aisle 
on future reforms to Congress' war powers authority.

                          ____________________